Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd

Case [2003] FCA 946

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 946

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v REDMOND HOLDINGS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNITURE DIRECT PTY LTD) ACN 095 077 035, TOOWOOMBA FURNITURE & ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNELECT PTY LTD) ACN 095 979 874, and MONTY KHOURY
Q279 OF 2001

KIEFEL J
4 SEPTEMBER 2003
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q279 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

REDMOND HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNITURE DIRECT PTY LTD) ACN 095 077 035
FIRST RESPONDENT

TOOWOOMBA FURNITURE & ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNELECT PTY LTD)
ACN 095 979 874
SECOND RESPONDENT

MONTY KHOURY
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 SEPTEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time for compliance with Order 6 of 25 February 2003 be extended to 5 September 2003.

2.The third respondent, Mr Khoury, pay the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s costs associated with the hearing today.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q279 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

REDMOND HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNITURE DIRECT PTY LTD) ACN 095 077 035
FIRST RESPONDENT

TOOWOOMBA FURNITURE & ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FURNELECT PTY LTD)
ACN 095 979 874
SECOND RESPONDENT

MONTY KHOURY
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE:

4 SEPTEMBER 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In relation to the application for an extension of time, Mr Khoury did nothing until 3 August 2003, and after a reminder from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’), to comply with the order of 25 February 2003.  I harbour some real doubts about whether Mr Khoury took seriously the need for timely compliance with the order.  Mr Khoury has, however, offered contrition.  I am satisfied that he is at least now aware of the difficult position he would have been in had he not taken steps to comply with the order before the expiration of the period limited for compliance.

  2. In relation to any future orders of this Court, which I hope will not be made against him, he ought to bear in mind that his non-compliance with this order within time and the need for an extension, together with my remarks, will probably be taken into account by the Court in the future. 

  3. As I have said, however, the fact that Mr Khoury did take some positive steps towards achieving compliance, even though it was towards the end of the period limited for compliance, must be taken into account.  I do not think therefore that it could be concluded that he held the orders of the Court in contempt.  In those circumstances, I think it is best to regularise the question of compliance.  I will make the order sought, namely, that the time for compliance with the order of 25 February 2003 be extended to 5 September 2003.

  4. In relation to the question of costs, the ACCC rightly brought to my attention deficiencies in the explanation offered by Mr Khoury.  The ACCC has been put in the position where it was a necessary party to the application today, and was required to put material on and appear before me to bring to the Court’s attention matters which would affect the exercise of the Court’s discretion.  In those circumstances, I will order that the third respondent, Mr Khoury, pay the ACCC’s costs associated with the hearing today.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel.

Associate:

Dated:            15 September 2003

Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Anderson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Gilshenan & Luton
Date of Hearing: 4 September 2003
Date of Judgment: 4 September 2003
Details
AGLC
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 946
Case
[2003] FCA 946
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a case against Redmond Holdings Pty Ltd and Mr Khoury in the Federal Court of Australia. The ACCC sought an extension to the compliance time of a previous order and for Mr Khoury to pay the costs associated with the hearing. The case revolved around the enforcement of compliance orders issued under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the court’s ability to extend compliance times and allocate costs.

The primary legal issues were whether the court had the authority to extend the compliance time for the orders in question and whether it was appropriate to direct Mr Khoury to pay the ACCC’s costs. The ACCC argued that an extension was necessary due to unforeseen circumstances, while Mr Khoury opposed the extension and the cost order. The court had to determine the appropriateness of the requested extension and the allocation of costs, considering the principles of fairness and the objectives of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The court found that the extension of the compliance time was justified given the circumstances presented by the ACCC. It noted that the delay was not due to any fault of the ACCC but rather unforeseen events that warranted a reasonable extension. Regarding the costs, the court held that it was appropriate to order Mr Khoury to pay the ACCC's costs, considering the nature of the application and the ACCC's successful outcome. The court emphasised that the costs should reflect the actual expenses incurred by the ACCC in pursuing the application.

The orders made by the court were to extend the compliance time for the orders in question to 5 September 2003 and to direct Mr Khoury to pay the ACCC's costs associated with the hearing. These orders were based on the court’s findings that the extension was reasonable and that the allocation of costs was justified under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for compliance with Order 6 of 25 February 2003 be extended to 5 September 2003.

2. The third respondent, Mr Khoury, pay the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s costs associated with the hearing today.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

KIEFEL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KIEFEL J

Full text does not contain this section.